leg-iron (leg_iron) wrote,
leg-iron
leg_iron

Legal protection racket.


A couple of years ago, the leader of the BNP was in court on racism charges because he said bad things about Muslims and was filmed doing it. Now, leaving aside that he was filmed in a supposedly private meeting, leaving aside that he was prosecuted for his opinions and therefore charged with a thought crime, the case was thrown out because criticising a religion is not criticising a race, so it wasn't racism. It was just talk.

The Labour response? Change the law. We'll get him next time.

I don't agree with the views of the BNP at all, but they have a right to those views. If they were out there forcing people to accept their views, if they were out there attacking people, if they were doing violent things in the name of their ideology, then lock them away. If they are just talking, there is, or should be, no crime.

In the same way - in exactly the same way - the five Muslim men recently arrested for talking about killing the Brown Gorgon should never have been arrested. All they did was talk about it (and how many people have done that, I wonder?). Their only crime was thought crime. They were not doing violent things in the name of their ideology. They made no attempt to act on their words. They were talking about it.

Funny how some of you out there are all for one of these being put away, while the other should be set free. I invite you to reflect on that and on the conditioning that makes you choose..

Lately, the case against the men charged with planning to blow up aircraft has collapsed. Not quite, since three men have been convicted of conspiracy to murder (I didn't even know that was a crime. I thought there should be some evidence of an actual attempt. But hey, we have so many new laws it's hard to keep up).

The main case hinged on proving that there was a definite plan to blow up aircraft and kill thousands. It failed to convince the jury.

Guess what the headline is?

Police in crisis after jury rejects £10m terror case

That's right. Straight in there with 'These criminals cost you taxpayers lots of money. Are you going to let them get away now?'

Yes I am. They have been found not guilty of the charges and the case against them is over. Let them go. Maybe they were innocent, maybe not, but the fact is that guilt was not proven. Case closed.

Oh, but it's not.

The Crown Prosecution Service indicated that it was likely to seek the retrial of seven men in an attempt to prove that there was a plan to attack aircraft and kill thousands of people.

Why? Why do they need to prove, specifically, that there was a plot to blow up airliners? Why does a 'not guilty' verdict not stand in this case?

You don't need clues. The answer is there in plain English.

The jury’s indecision in the face of a detailed Crown case raises questions about the public perception of the terror threat that could undermine government attempts to introduce further security legislation.

Just read that again. Losing this case undermines the Government's ability to introduce more strict controls on all of us. These men may or may not have done what they are accused of but really, it doesn't matter at all. The case isn't about them. It's not about airline safety or public safety at all. It's about public perception of the terror threat. It's about The Terror and its use in controlling the population. These men have to be found guilty so that harsher controls can be instigated. So that we can all feel the iron boot of authority on our throats.

For our own good.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that story edited by the Ministry of Truth by morning. The lines I quoted are there at the moment though.

The law is not on the side of the innocent. It is a tool of Government. A means of control. These men are being tried again on the same charges, something the law used to refuse to do in the days when it was there to protect, rather than control us. They will continue to be tried again and again until the Government get the answer they want.

Then they will tell us that there are more terrorists out to get us and we must let them strip us of our freedoms so that the benevolent Enlightened Ones can protect us. Only they can't do it without funding so they'll need to put the taxes up a bit. You know what I mean. Let's call it 'insurance', as Al Capone used to say.

Whether there really was a plot to blow up airliners is open to question. It has not been proven. The men charged with it were acquitted of that charge. Three were imprisoned for thought crime.

That's not the answer Labour wanted so they have to do it all again. It's becoming something of a theme in modern politics, isn't it? Keep asking the question until you get the answer you wanted.

More terror legislation means more power to the Bin Police and the Green Meanies and the Righteous. No deed, no word, no thought will go unpunished. Guilty until proven innocent and then retried until guilty. We cannot trust the law. We cannot trust the police. We cannot trust the neighbours. If you have children, you can't trust them. This is the World of Labour now. To paraphrase MC Hammer - you can't trust this.

Many of the councils who sieze upon these new powers with glee are Tory councils. Don't trust them either. They are the same party with different faces. Nothing will change unless all three of the main parties lose the next election. Vote for a minor party. Any one, choose the one you like. They won't be a minor party if they get enough votes and that is entirely up to you. Don't keep these people in power if you want all this nonsense to stop.

If you are in London on the 5th November, read this. And try to go along.

It's your last chance. I guarantee it will be illegal on the 6th.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Comments allowed for friends only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 9 comments